CALLER: Yes. And I have been listening to that, and since the first time I heard you mention that, I knew the answer. I was in the car with my 18-year-old son on Tuesday when you were talking about that again, and I looked at him, and I said, "I know why women are unhappy. Do you?" And without skipping a beat, he said, "Yes, because they're stepping outside of their God-given roles." And I think he hit the nail on the head. And in saying that I'm not saying it's a lesser role, it's a different role, and I think that women were designed and created to nurture babies, to love them, to educate them, to teach them to achieve their full academic potential, to love their fellow man, to become entrepreneurs, and I think that they're stepping outside of that and pursuing roles and stuff that just leaves them empty.

RUSH: I have a hard time disagreeing with this. Look at Hillary Clinton.

Now, I'm looking at the podcast, and this came at the very end of the 2d hour of the show. He needed to go, but he let her finish. Unable to articulate an opinion separate from hers, he made the slightly hedging "hard time disagreeing" statement then jumped for the cheap Hillary Clinton joke as he ran smack out of time.

But there it was. The old-time gender roles ideology, straightforward, unapologetic and unopposed. Served up hot. By a woman with 11 kids.

Wasn't that the same day he was reading an attack on him that repeatedly mentioned his drug addiction? Maybe that was Thursday. I thought that he may be trying to steal some pages from Beck's playbook: "That guy may talk about being an alcoholic, but I'm a drug addict--so don't you love me more...any ditos for me?"

It's a question we'll be exploring in depth on HuffPost in the coming weeks, in a series of blog posts by bestselling author and lecturer Marcus Buckingham. Drawing on his years as a senior researcher at Gallup, Marcus has developed a far-ranging expertise on what all of us -- but especially women -- can do to live richer, more purposeful, and, yes, happier lives.

Marcus kicks things off today with a look at "What's Happening to Women's Happiness?" a post in which he drills into the data on women and happiness, and looks at what is causing the downward drift. He also sets the table for the coming weeks during which he will lay out his prescriptions for bucking the unhappiness trend, the subject of his latest book Find Your Strongest Life: What the Happiest and Most Successful Women Do Differently," which will be published on September 29th (just six days before our Books section launches!).

As part of this, he will introduce his new Strong Life Test, a tool to help women recognize precisely which parts of their lives are going to bring them the most joy, pleasure, energy, satisfaction, and, ultimately, greater happiness. According to Marcus, "It doesn't give you all the answers, but it tells you where to start."

Chris Matthews took, what I thought was, a gratuitous swipe at Hillary this morning re the Olympics bid. Matthews replayed old video of Hillary when she claimed she was a lontime Yankees fan. It seemed irrelevant and odd to me.

Actually, it's not. Unless you believe that God (or Nature or The Will) is indifferent as regards the propagation of the species.

I don't know a single person who thinks God views us as nothing more than capsules to hold genetic material in. On the other hand, one hears about "God-given talent" in music, or whatever. So you are in the minority here, ricpic.

The subject is not what women ought to have or not have the freedom to do, nor even what they should or shouldn't do. The subject is why women may not be happy these days, which is not the same thing as either of the preceding. And I'm not surprised at all that what Rush agrees with is not consistent with the dogma feminists tell each other.

God-given roles? Is she God? Does she tell the Holy Spirit what to do in people's lives and how to work?

Some women are indeed given a role of mother--and some of them are not given other areas of focus. That's a great thing, and God bless them.

Other women are given the role of mother and have other tasks as well. If they forsake these other tasks they are forsaking what God has called them to do. If they forsake their children they are forsaking what God has called them to do.

Other women aren't mothers but make a significant impact in this world in other ways. They may not have found a partner to have kids with, or they may be unable to have kids, or they realize they're deepest calling would force them to place children in a tertiary role.

And I know women in each of these categories. Generally, I find, that the women in the second category tend to be the most happy throughout their lives. They have children and they have a part of themselves they contribute outside of their children (which helps when children grow up and leave). This isn't to say women in the other categories aren't happy. Very many are.

This caller makes the heretical mistake of making her calling every woman's calling. And she's raising sons who are going to be mightily confused by women once they leave their nest. They might even fight against God in fighting against the gifts, talents, roles, and insights women have in areas far outside child-raising.

This caller makes the heretical mistake of making her calling every woman's calling. And she's raising sons who are going to be mightily confused by women once they leave their nest. They might even fight against God in fighting against the gifts, talents, roles, and insights women have in areas far outside child-raising.

Well, that says it all, Paddy. Thank you.

I'm a conservative who votes Republican due to my thoughts about the proper role of government and the proper role of America in the world. But I am frequently depressed by the misogynist crap I find myself in the position of apparently supporting.

I have to ask because honestly I think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Not yours. Maybe mine. But certainly between ours.

In other words, are you saying that you don't agree with her? Certainly that's ok. It's your blog after all. So if you don't agree with her (and Rush) why not just tell us what you don't agree with. Or better, tell us what your position is.

In other "other" words, are you really trying to defeat her position on an issue because she has 11 children and what appears to be a successful marriage and life?

I like to clip my toenails and then use them as floss to floss my teeth.

Is that gross?

My Indian/British husband's mother died in an "accident". He hasn't told me what the accident is yet. I am curious.

I also like to smell my Indian/British husband's balls.

Did I tell you how how it is to see an Indian guy with a British accent? It is so unexpected. Totally Bend It Like Beckham. And totally hot. It makes me horny, but not horny enough to cum because it has become to familar.

I hope her son was doing the driving. Having one's own source of transportation was never a traditional gender role for women.

Further, homeschooling kids was never a traditional gender role for women, because women traditionally never received more than a modicum of education. Again, in my own family, fourth grade was it -- eighth grade as we approached modern times. Homeschooling is a fad of the past twenty years.

And I learned with the demise of The Guiding Light, that radio soap operas changed women's traditional role of long, isolated work days on the farmstead while their husbands were out plowing or disking, and their children were at the Little Red Schoolhouse.

I feel bad for straight men because women (generally) don't devour a hog like gay men do. No the woman you met is not going to suck you dick like the woman you saw on the porno last night. On the other hand for mos the fag with you is likely going to know and love to suck a dick.

Straight men are missing out on a really good blowjob.

Straight women (for the most part) hate sucking dick and for that I am sorry to the straighties but want to tell you that I am with you in spirit.

I am struck by the fact that people dismiss this woman's opinion out of hand. Just because she is a mother of 11 and has vry old fashioned views doesn't mean she should be pushed out of the discussion entirely.

If we listen to the strident feminists who claim that women are enslaved by motherhood then why not listen to the mothers who love their position in life?

Women in my family have been getting college degrees since 1895 and graduate degrees since 1941. They have had options and choices (which I recognize is not typical) to control their own life. Still many (not all) choose to stop their career to raise their children (even families with 12 kids!)

The women who choose to stay home and raise their children freely choose to do so. Why is that the one choice that is so reviled by other women and much of the media?

It was striking to hear this on Rush because women like this are NOT permitted to participate in other forms of media. The fact that she was able to say that on Rush shows the strength of talk radio to bring unheard voices to the nation.

>>>I feel bad for straight men because women (generally) don't devour a hog like gay men do. No the woman you met is not going to suck you dick like the woman you saw on the porno last night. On the other hand for mos the fag with you is likely going to know and love to suck a dick.

Straight men are missing out on a really good blowjob.

Straight women (for the most part) hate sucking dick and for that I am sorry to the straighties but want to tell you that I am with you in spirit.<<<<

For some reason this conjured images of one of those really bad informercials where the alternative product is shown in the worst light.

First scene shows a woman trying to pleasure the Titus and looking like she's going to puke rather than even put it in her mouth.

"But with the new FagSuck(tm), you'll have perfect blows every time!" Cue the image of Titus going to down on wee winky.

Cough... we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on the apparent misogyny of Rush Limbaugh.

I love how all the Lefties go all feminist when it's safe or it's necessary to retain power (or water, in the case of some).

Rescuing women from a barbaric 7th century ideology? We can't do that, it's torture.

A hillBilly President who believes in the droit de seigneur, to quote zaplito? He's done sooo much for women's rights.

Whether anyone likes it or not, a lot of women are abandoning the corporate life for a family. And even MoDo has conceded women, especially her, are unhappy these days. Like all Lefties, the people here hate this woman because she isn't afraid to say she doesn't want to be another Gloria Steinbrenner. Alinsky's Rules must be applied!!!! Stone her!!! Demonize her!!! Liberalism in action.

rh, this is one of the things that depress me the most. I've been commenting on Althouse for quite some time now and I don't think I've been a shrinking violet. But it's too much trouble for you to view me as an individual. You'd rather view me as whatever you have come up with as being "typically female". God knows what that is.

But she doesn't have very old fashioned views. At most she has views common in the 1950s (large families, cars for wives, mom does not work outside the home), with the exception of the more modern fad of homeschooling.

No, she is not God and she does not pretend to be, and this is hardly heresy. Indeed, it is entirely in line with revelation.

We don't need to wonder or ponder what God's will is or what He wants. He has revealed it in our very bodies.

This revelation of God in our bodies or, if you will, this theology of the body, very clearly speaks of one specific role for women -- a role which is physically impossible for men to fulfill -- and one specific role for men. The female body is assigned one role, the male body is assigned another role. However, the body also very clearly speaks of these differences being complementary, and the roles being equal.

Moreover, whatever the specific roles of male and female, as revealed in the body, the human body also reveals God's general plan for everyone -- the vocation to which everyone is called -- the vocation to love one another.

This is hardly heresy. On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the faith as revealed by God.

rh, this is one of the things that depress me the most. I've been commenting on Althouse for quite some time now and I don't think I've been a shrinking violet. But it's too much trouble for you to view me as an individual. You'd rather view me as whatever you have come up with as being "typically female". God knows what that is.

If you will notice, you say how you feel, and because of that I have to do something to fix it.

This works in a marriage! The guy is happy for the chance to make you once again happy.

It's awful politics however, where no man in particular is in mind, and where no show of satisfaction to him will then appear.

It's nagging made political, which is what gives received feminism its character.

Sorry, I don't see anything controversial here. I think most women would be happier at home with their kids. And if a woman has 11 kids, she is going to be at home for a long long time. It would be incredibly inefficient and nonsensical for that woman to go out and get a job.

So should every woman have 2 kids max and a career? If she wants, but it's going to be a backbreaking existence unless she has a really cushy job that she is really good at. There aren't too many of those jobs or those women.

"stay-at-home mothers tend to be younger and less educated, with lower family incomes. They are more likely than other mothers to be Hispanic or foreign-born." While 38 percent of all mothers surveyed had a bachelor's degree, only 32 percent of stay-at-home moms were college graduates.

Try telling members of the MRA movement that a man's function is to spend his life working his butt off so that his wife can stay at home and have as many kids as she needs to be "happy" - and good luck with that.

Yep, but the competing cultural norms, when they conflict with the Darwin-given propensities, may result in "unhappiness."

And that's all that's being talked about here, happiness.

EDH, are you of the opinion that Tina's ONLY point was that women need to have babies in order to be happy?

Also, as noted, some women don't want to have children. Some can't. Some would like to but can't find a partner. These women are not doomed to a lifetime of unhappiness.

Which is a nebulous concept anyway. You can't roller-skate in a buffalo herd, but you can be happy if you've a mind to. (Here for those of you who haven't run across this and will think I've lost my mind.)

Don't worrry straighties I am not going to be hovering over your hogs.

There are plenty of hot mo hogs that I prefer to "hover" over.

The only reason I made the statement that women don't like to suck a dick is because I have watched too many comedians. Chris Rock, Lisa Lampanelli, etc. They all say straight women don't like to suck a cock. I could be wrong though but for some reason I believe there is some truth to it, not that there is anything wrong with not wanting to suck a dick.

I feel bad for straight men because women (generally) don't devour a hog like gay men do.

It probably works both ways - men don't chew the carpet as well as lesbians. Oh wait, I used a tragically obsolete expression. The modern expression is men don't lick the hideous pedophilic Bald Eagle as well as lesbians.

Much has been made of the bizarre ways and means men go to fulfill their sexual drive. But very little is written of female perversions or enthusiasms. Some women have eleven children because that's where their head and genitals are at. Some women choose prostitution because they enjoy the work. Human sexuality does not exclude human rationality but their congruence is more often by chance than by design. I think in many ways women's dark, inchoate longings for designer shoes is more disturbing and destructive to the orderly processes of society than Polanski's thing for underage girls. Binge spending by women should properly be looked at as a disgusting perversion and, perhaps, even be legislated against.

Peter you are so right. Lesbians like munching carpet more than they like going on whale watches. They can be down on that thing for hours.

Men on the other hand get tired and bored with eating the snatch.

I guess my point is that we should not be so focused on sex but rather intimacy and love and compannionship and shit like that.

You know goint on nature walks, the farmers market, dinner, picking each other from work, caring for each other when we are sick. These are the things that are important in life. Not a really good blow job or carpet munching.

"one specific role for women -- a role which is physically impossible for men to fulfill -- and one specific role for men."

More heresy.

One role for men? Have you read the lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament. Some were made to be teachers, some apostles, some... it goes on. And this list isn't about men only. It's about those who God works in.

You're confusing this topic with sexual roles. As Laura says.

Of course it's assuming the role of God. She may not feel like she is, she may not intend to, but anytime anyone declares that someone else must, by command of God, do something specific to make them happy they are assuming the role of God. Now, sometimes there is further support this supports what God says. Oftentimes, however, as in this case, it's making a gross generalization into a standard policy.

Speaking for God to say something that is contrary to God's revelation (that women are can only happy raising children), dismissing the work of the Holy Spirit who may lead many women to pursue all kinds of tasks, is heresy.

It's a rejection of God's work so as to make one's own choices sound that much more divinely stamped.

It's wrong. And, I'd go as far to say that it's a pernicious evil because far too many people have been quelled by such pious sounding nonsense they lose out on embracing the live and activities that God has called them, gifted them, and pushed them to pursue. All so they can please people who don't know God or his Scripture or his manifold work nearly as much as they think they do.

This is a big reason why the church has stumbled. In abusing, in rejecting, in stifling, it refuses to acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit who gives spiritual gifts to be used in edification of the whole community. Sometimes this may be a calling to focus on one's own family. Often it is not limited to this, and to say that it is is indeed a false testimony of God.

EDH, are you of the opinion that Tina's ONLY point was that women need to have babies in order to be happy?

No, just that the prevalence of unhappiness observed among women, many otherwise viewed as tremendously successful, may be explained by those cultural norms being in conflict to some extent with the maternal drive, whether God-given or evolutionary in nature.

I was happiest when I was at home raising my son, there is no doubt about that. I felt financial pressure to go back to work unfortunately, but in addition to that I felt societal pressure. We've come a long way, and I'm not sure that all of it is good.

well in my very limited experience with him limbaugh doesnt seem terribly interested in social conservative topics. the times he does drift into that territory yield his worst material and I think hes aware of that.

but its been a long time since ive listened to him so i dont necessarily know what anne was getting at.

Also, I don't think this woman was suggesting what all women need for happiness. I'd guess that she meant that women possibly, in general, may have their priorities mixed up. It is an opinion. It's interesting to consider without being defensive about it, I think.

I said, "I know why SOME women are unhappy. Do you?" And without skipping a beat, he said, "Yes, because they're stepping outside of their God-given roles."

I added the necessary work, boldface. I'm sure some women are unhappy because they're not doing 'traditional' (hate that word) roleplaying. But some women are probably unhappy because or in spite of doing traditional roles.

I wonder if this mother of 11 has noticed that all her children are different? Yet she can't see that all women might be?

Maybe the issue is that women feel more pressured to have the career and would rather be at home, but don't feel being a stay-at-home mom is socially acceptable in some circles, and this is what leads to their unhappiness?

And mariner, I have found that you can't change film with a kid on your back either.

EDH, are you a man? I'm asking b/c you're talking about women's maternal drives and explaining how they make us feel. Seems to me that women know all we need to know about drives that, by definition, are exclusive to our sex.

Maybe the issue is that women feel more pressured to have the career and would rather be at home, but don't feel being a stay-at-home mom is socially acceptable in some circles, and this is what leads to their unhappiness?

I'd like to see all of the pressure dropped. Pressure to work - pressure to stay home. Probably I'm biased b/c I did work, but I got plenty of mommy drive-bys about how I shouldn't have had a kid if I was going to let strangers raise her, didn't love her enough to do without the two SUVs in the driveway (as if!) and so on. There is a very, very strong cultural norm that women are supposed to be at home with their kids. Tina's expressing it again here.

Ultimately we need to get hold of ourselves and do what we think and believe we need to do, and disregard the opinions of utter strangers. And that goes with working outside the home, breastfeeding, homeschooling, spanking, and a whole raft of other issues that are nobody outside the family's damn business.

...My mom, who grew up on a farm with 7 siblings, all of whom had to work in the fields from toddlerhood on, used to sing that song to me. It's a silly song but it contains a universal truth that people who are on top of their lives, if not their circumstances, figure out.

Well, what did you expect with that study? I saw that answer coming up 10th avenue.

Apparently this woman never met my mother and her friends who had the old time gender role and was miserable until she/they got out.

HOWEVER, if a pollster had asked her back then, she would have said she was happy because you just couldn't _admit_ to such things with little kids to take care of. That is the good thing about kids. You absolutely cannot stay focused on yourself even if you are in hell.

Freedom, such as it is, includes the freedom to be miserable and admit to it. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

No mystery here.

It's perfectly possible for both the housewife role and the career role to bring you either misery or happiness. To say one or the other is The Answer is idiotic. Such an easy call.

God, some people are so insecure in their choices. (Maureen Dowd, I'm talking to you.)

That's a stupid thing for a Republican having to defend herself from socially conservative misogynists to say. Because I would defend your view here, and the fact that I still likely know much more about biology, physics and math than you will ever learn.

It's people like me you that should stop trying to make yourself enemies with.

I'm on my second cup and haven't really thought about it till now, but I am going to be happy today, just like I did yesterday. Yesterday was glorious and today will be too. I'm going to do it at The Getty Museum today. I could easily have a very unhappy day if I chose to. I choose not.

I say that not because I've never met an academic on the right. (I have). I say that because people willing to knee-jerkingly defend the right and fight the left on issues such as economics (as you have done) are also increasingly unwilling to accept that the right has gone off the deep-end with its antagonism toward evolution, climate change, etc.

Your profile says you graduated college and that you work in "chemicals". I'm assuming that if you have a degree in chemistry or work as a chemist you might have been more specific from an occupational standpoint. Forgive me if I assumed too much in that.

But I make no apologies in calling out the right for its war against science.

And did you find any time to take a history class or two while doing that double-major? If you did, you'd realize that the left is merely a continuation of the same enlightenment that gave us science in the first place.

Your assertion that the right has no war against science is ridiculous.

Some of the ID folk are unfortunately chemists or mathematicians, in fact. Doesn't make them any less ignorant in their denunciation of evolution - a part of science that I'd be interested in getting your opinion on.

They have been marginalized for a reason. The reason is that they're full of it.

I guess my point is that we should not be so focused on sex but rather intimacy and love and compannionship and shit like that.Sez the recent convert.

some women don't want to have children. Some can't. Some would like to but can't find a partner. These women are not doomed to a lifetime of unhappinessYou're not watching enough television. Women trying desperately to have babies show up in a huge percentage of shows--it must be a problem in the TV industry, if it isn't in the real world.

My baccalaureate is in molecular biology. I have an advanced degree in a related field - and some publications. I chose not to remain active in research for the time being, as it appears you have as well for some time. But I must keep up with it in order to stay on top of my field.

Profiles of the only two academics of any renown who support intelligent design. Notice how neither of the two are biologists.

From the Wikipedia article you referrenced:

Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania....

So much for your intellectual snobbery.

There are people on the right who associate the rampant hedonism on the left with godlessness, and both with evolution. They've embraced intelligent design as a way to put aside young-earth creationism and still not deny the role of God as creator. If you feel the need to sneer at these people, go ahead. Intelligent design is not a plank in the Republican platform.

I don't feel any less a need to sneer at the right-wing think tanks which have promoted the fiction of intelligent design than you feel a need to sneer at Hollywood or whichever institution ostensibly associated with the left promotes "godlessness", "hedonism" or any other form of debauchery worse than the recklessness that the previous administration subjected the nation to.

I believe there need to be a poll somewhere regarding women's interest in sucking cock.

I would also like a poll of straightie men regarding their satisfaction of getting blown by women.

I think this is very important.

For example my British/Indian blew all over my face last night and I still have his cum remnants on my face and where it as a badge of honor. I also enjoy the smell. How many women would be willing to take the step and be that honest?

That is really what sets me apart from others here.

My honesty. I wish others could be so honest.

I have dry cum flakes on my face right now and am proud of it. Can anyone of you be that open and honest?

I thought he was saying it was ridiculous to think that all women are made to conform to the traditional role because Hillary so clearly wasn't. (Not that it's ture that she so clearly wasn't but that that's what I thought he was saying.)

Laura, without women there would be no next generation. What could possibly compete in importance, for women, with that? And yet the assertion that propagating is priority #1 for women seems to bother you. You react to it as though it were a putdown. I don't get it.

Thanks. Okay, straighties, picture Titus hovering over you next time -- if there is a next time. It will be really hot.

Sorry, Ann, but doesn't work for me. Some of the women here, yes. Despite what Titus says (and I think he may be right). Unfortunately, thanks to your marriage this last summer to Meade, had to strike you from my list. Actually, most of the women here seem to tend to be married. Oh well.

Let me suggest that part of the problem is that different women want different things, but because of that, the popular media has to cater to all of those things. But, that means that the popular perception of what would make a woman happy is being able to do everything. Family, career, kids, husband, lovers, entertaining, travel, shopping, etc. Maybe they could if they had the sort of support staff that the elite do, but not in real life. And many of those elite, esp. in Hollywood, really aren't that happy having it all (note that Courtney Love post by Ann yesterday) either.

As stated before, as is revealed in our bodies, male and female, and as further revealed in scripture (which incidently was read at Mass today), we each have a calling, a calling that (a) is both specific to our bodies, male and female, equal and complementary, and (b) applies to human beings in general.

The general calling of all human persons, or vocation, is to love one another. Complete love is, by its very nature, not only a joining (unitive), but is also, by its very nature, fruitful (procreative). Love is not static, rather, love bursts out from itself and things grow out of love.

All are called to this unitive and fruitful/procreative love, each specific to male or female. Often times, this includes physically fathering or birthing/mothering children.

But it is not limited to that. Even those who never physically have children, those who never marry, are called to this unitive and fruitful/procreative love, such as a teacher with his or her students. If not physically, we are still called to have spiritual/emotional/social "children." Although she missed the mark overall, Hillary was close with her "it takes a village" idea.

And this having of children or "children" is called to be specifically as male or female. That does not mean necessarily every woman popping countless babies out of her body, but it does mean retaining those qualities that are specific to woman -- femininity and maternity -- in her dealings with others.

The problem -- a MAJOR problem -- in modern times is the rejection of the idea that human persons are, in fact, male and female, and the promotion of the idea that sex is merely a human construct, to be reinvented however the hell we want to reinvent it. As well as the associated idea that, to be truly and fully a woman, she must be a man.

What don't you get about the concept that it sucks having people - people who are not you - tell you what to do or what is the best use of your abilities? It is really that hard to understand? It's simplistic.

"All men should be soldiers and football players. Every single one. They are naturally aggressive and would be happiest killing others and risking being killed in the name of a cause instead of staying at home making trouble for the women. That includes you (if you are male) and your sons. It's what you do best."

Uh, no, not really. On the other hand, I became a lawyer basically because my grandmother's soothsayer told her I should go into law, back when I was born (I wouldn't even have considered law school otherwise -- I went to an engineering school for undergrad and majored in mathematics), so I suppose my perspective is different from others'.

Honestly, though, I don't understand why people get all huffy about this kind of thing. Other people have their opinion about the highest and best use of your talents. As long as they're not, you know, forcing you to do what they say, I don't see why you should complain. The freedom to make your own choices isn't the freedom to be free of any and all criticism of those choices. The first freedom is important. The second is not.

I wish someone had hit me upside the head when I was twenty-something and told me to get busy with the babymaking. Now I'm 37 and I think the ship has sailed. Put all the things I did on a balance against motherhood, they just don't add up. And I was someone of fairly traditional bent, but still susceptible to the fictions about wasting your life etc. etc. as well as the pickiness about men that made me let a few go that would have made excellent husbands and fathers.

"stay-at-home mothers tend to be younger and less educated, with lower family incomes. They are more likely than other mothers to be Hispanic or foreign-born." While 38 percent of all mothers surveyed had a bachelor's degree, only 32 percent of stay-at-home moms were college graduates.

This is simple labor economics. The cost benefit ratio of staying home for mothers varies based on their income potential and number and ages of children.

Oh, and I mostly agree with Laura. I do think some women might be unhappy because they put aside the part that wants babies in pursuit of other things and now regret it(MoDo, for example) but that certainly doesn't apply to everyone. There are probably people who are happy now that they can pursue avenues that would previously have been denied to them.

careen, if you had used as your example "All men should be providers," I could go along with it. The woman has the baby and the man keeps the woman and the baby housed, fed, etc. That way the woman and the man take care of their respective roles in raising the next generation: job #1. All other jobs or inclinations for both women and men are secondary. Ever here the term marginal? A woman who doesn't have a baby, a man who doesn't provide for that woman and baby: they're marginal.

And Titus, you probably won't, but you should stop that. You did that to me once as well, and it's creepy. It's very close to harassment, in my opinion. All I can say is that it is just awful reading that directed at you. I don't blame Laura a bit.

I don't think that the caller was suggesting that being an entrepreneur was on her list of what women women "were designed and created" to do. Rather, I think it was presented as one of the goals in the proper teaching of children.

That is, women were designed and created to nurture babies, to love them, to educate them, to teach them.

And what should they be taught?

To achieve their full academic potential, to love their fellow man, to become entrepreneurs.

I think David Letterman did not become a successful comic in order to cheer up sick kids in the charity ward. He pursued success because money and fame are nookie magnets. His entire career can be said to be secondary to his sex drive. Thus so with Laura and these other molecular biologists that post here. They pursued advanced degrees not to find a cure for cancer but to land a job where they could make enough money to buy Hermes scarves and Jimmy Choo shoes. Please don't think I am being judgemental of these disgusting perverts, but the fact remains that men pursue money in order to attract women and that women pursue money in order to buy clothes. These women with their dog eared copy of the Prada catalogue next to their bed do not think of the real world consequences of their sublimated libidos. Titus, the conscience of the Althouse blog, has put his finger on a very important issue. Given the choice between an all expense paid shopping spree at Bloomingdale's or a week end with their boyfriend at the Plaza, I feel that the women here would choose Bloomingdale's. I don't mind that women find sex secondary to children but to find it secondary to shopping takes us to somewhere dark.

Peter is probably right on the entrepreneur thing. Having known women very like Tina, however, I was prone to assume she was applying it to a woman's role. It's very much a description of the woman from Proverbs who buys and sells land and runs a rather extensive household.

As to the topic at hand, I am a bit torn. I really hate the judgments on both sides. I'd have to say that in my experience the "You're a loser if you stay at home!" pressure has far outweighed the "How dare you put your kid in daycare!" pressure.

With that said, I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was a little weird that so many women now have a kid and then just go right back to work. I realize that some absolutely have to, because of financial reasons. But to have a kid and hand it off to another woman seems odd to me, especially in the very young years.

I lack the recreational clothes-shopping gene. Hate it! Never do I say: Gee, what a perfect day to spend shopping for clothes! Never have I, in my entire life. I'd take a weekend with my husband at a Motel 6 over the outing William describes, anytime. No contest.

(I suspect, however, that my husband would say his first wife would've chosen Bloomies. LOL.)

I wouldn't consider myself virtuous, however, since I'm at the other end of the extreme re: clothes shopping and fashion (won't do it unless forced, primarily for on-site work reasons, which I haven't been for many years now).

Also straighties, I hate to burst the falacy but all gays do not want to sock your cock.

Not even with argyles?? Tassels? Lambchop sock puppet?

I agree with Paddy O's comment. The caller was confusing her 'calling' with it being every woman's calling.

I don't know why women are perceived as being unhappy as a group. I'm happy. Most women I know are happy. You can never achieve perfect happiness, man or woman. Like Inyo Montoya.... disappointment. Live with it.Maybe that is the issue. We have been told as women, we can have it all. A career, perfect children, wonderful husband, chilled glasses of merlot....everything should be perfect and it it isn't.....it must be someone's fault. Yours. Your husband. Your children. Someone!!

Not everyone is suited to be parents. However, the only way to know if this is true is to actually have children. Kind of a tough learning curve.

I'm a member of PETCC (People for the Ethical Treatment of Credit Cards). We've been arrested a number of times. So was John Brown. We stand outside expensive shopping malls and pelt expensively dressed women with minutely shredded bankruptcy petitions. What with electromagnetism, those little chads are almost impossible to remove from cashmere. Cruel and malicious, you say. Well, maybe, but it makes a point. Our aim is to spread awareness of female psychosexual spending disorder. This little talked about disease has caused more pain and chaos in most families than sugar drinks or partially hydrogenated fats. The unwillingness of the female members of this blog to even consider themselves participants in this disease shows just how insidious it is. The first and most significant clue that you have this addiction is your denial of it. The fact that not one woman has come forward to thank me for my little homily shows just how deep in denial they really are. Well, I don't expect your thanks. If I have made just one woman reconsider the premises of her foolish life, the abuse you heap upon me will all be worth it.

I lack the recreational clothes-shopping gene. Hate it! Never do I say: Gee, what a perfect day to spend shopping for clothes! Never have I, in my entire life.

God. Me too! I view clothes shopping (especially work clothing) as torture. I usually buy from catalogues if I can. Or make my own clothes or have them custom made since the styles really suck and the sizes just don't fit.

When I go shopping for in the office shoes (Naturalizer 1 1/2 heel pumps) I know what fits. Call ahead and have them ready to go and buy once a year in about 4 to 5 colors. Black, Taupe, Navy, Brown, Red. Boom...done in less than 10 minutes. Who cares what my feet look like? They are under a desk.

Now.....shopping for going out at night clothing and f*@K me pumps....that's something else.

I don't think that the caller was suggesting that being an entrepreneur was on her list of what women women "were designed and created" to do. Rather, I think it was presented as one of the goals in the proper teaching of children.

To Peter - That does seem to be what she was saying, it was just interesting. Why randomly entrepreneurs, rather than docs/lawyers/teachers…just a weird choice.

And maybe it popped into her head because, for women who stay home, a lot of them want a job they can do from home and often want to start their own business.

Same goes for a lot of women. You are all self-selecting crappy people. No wonder you think the opposite gender is idiotic.

People are encouraged to date and fall in love with images and reflections. You can even offer someone the most genuine and decent person in the book and they'll still pass that person up for whom they perceive to be the more attractive one, whether it comes down to looks (for men) or social success (for women). It's just too strongly ingrained an urge for most people to pass up, or at least for them to avoid considering.

I think a lot of people become mature enough to find someone they click with, trust and go with that... and then spend a lifetime relegating what made them excited, as opposed to what made them feel comforted, to fantasy. But a hell of a lot of people still hold on to those fantasies.

The best thing is when you find someone who is conventionally attractive according to larger expectations and who clicks with you in a good way. But the problem is that the more conventionally attractive someone is, the more they'll feel tempted to trade up for someone who more closely matches them in the looks and success categories - regardless of whether or not the trade-up clicks with them either.

If somewhere in America some woman reconsiders her purchase of Ugg boots and feeds her hungry children instead, my efforts here will not have been in vain. Financial dysmorphic credit image is a common disorder among women, and your facile attempt to dismiss this as misogyny just complicates the problem.

Yeah, Peter. Theology and science are not mutually exclusive matters to ponder in the same brain. They are however mutually exclusive forms of epistemology. One's understanding of one shouldn't influence or detract from one's understanding of or appreciation for the other.

But apparently some (even some educated at the undergraduate level in science) believe that the need that a political party has to cater to people who can't understand that fact is more important than stating the obvious.

I thought more about traditional gender roles. No man in my family ever sat in a cubicle for even 8 hours a day, so I've spent the vast majority of my working life in a non-traditional gender role. Someone mentioned going to engineering school. Except for the service academies, engineering schools are barely more than a century old.

I noticed everyone assumes that there is but one traditional gender role for women: staying home and producing as many children as possible while some man takes care of you.

This leaves out the traditional woman's role of dying in childbirth. Or having one's husband die young from some accident, or in war. Traditionally, few men wanted to raise another man's children. Or the role, still commmon today, of the youngest girl staying home and taking care of the parents, until they die off and she's too old to have her own family.

Let's talk about the traditional role of the spinster aunt for a while.

You all know there really isn't a God who is telling this poor, deluded woman what to do, right? It seems odd that no one is pointing that out.

If she had been some Amazonian tribeswoman who claimed that a tree stump or magic brook had told her to stay home and have 11 babies, you would have thought she was bonkers. But just go throwing around the God word and everyone gets tongue tied.

But then, maybe I am wrong. Prove his existence to me and I'll admit it (and, no, I don't have to prove his non-existence, you are making the claim so you start with the proofs!).

Fls: I noticed everyone assumes that there is but one traditional gender role for women...

You assumed wrong, then.

William: One the one hand, I agree with your notion that Ugg (tm) boots, for example, among other name-brand purchases, are not needs. (In case it matters for you, with regard to the following point, which it shouldn't, but anyway: No Uggs here.) OTOH ... well, on the other hand, I could give examples of financial-priority abandonment from other sides and points of view.

Are you actually saying you didn't notice that the comment of mine you referenced was in very specific response to a particular comment (particular comments) posted by William, and picked up thereafter elsewise?

If so, I'm not sure whether to 1) apologize for lack of clarity on my part or 2) entreat of you a great clarity of attention to comments thread.

Perhaps you could enlighten me.

As for your family history, I could match it with mine, but given your choice of expression of yours, it might be a rather awkward fit for you, so I'll refrain--however much I might wish it otherwise.

reader iam: Mostly I'm just pulling chains. I think there's something funny about telling a microbiologist that she's only in it for the fancy clothes. If Margaret Dumont were alive today, she would be a frequent commenter on Althouse and probably a microbiologist. Microbiologists should lighten up. Too much necrosis burdens the soul.....Anyway, the attempt, however lame, was neither to instruct nor inflame, but merely to amuse. I'm sure most of the women here are rabid sluts who would much rather have hot monkey sex with the pizza delivery boy than go shopping at Bloomingdale's. I'm sorry if in my attempt at humor, I implied otherwise.

FLS: You just ducked, while letting your misleading implication about what I was responding to, and why, stand.

You're also completely, utterly and without excuse misunderstanding the impetus for I said--and, more important, completely, utterly and with very little excuse assuming, and with absolutely NO excuse stating, not only what my understanding of history is, but what my actual family history and experience is and was.

William: I appreciate (more than you know) the humor of your last comment. In fact, I laughed aloud.

The problem is, earlier in your efforts at parody, you betrayed your weakness in a) failing to lay satiric markers and, most important, b) clearly not knowing when to stop and let your early groundwork, well, do its work.

Looking at what you wrote, and continued to posit, it's quite valid to conclude you apparently believe it's generically better to stomp the soil around plants you're tending (do you watch too much TV, maybe?). Perhaps you ought consider if, when you're trying to grow something, you'd be better off aerating the soil and then letting it be, at least a bit, at least for awhile, rather than keep bothering at it.

In short: If indeed your effort was either to inspire or merely amuse, it failed, on account of lack of benign neglect."

I have no earthly idea if Rush’s caller “hit the nail on the head” with her opinion of why women are unhappy. What I do with, with absolute certainty, is that there is something fundamentally different about our kids versus when I was growing up. I used to think this was just a side-effect of moving from youth to adult and then on toward middle-age, but after talking to A LOT of teachers, coaches, and others that deal with kids (most with decades of career experience), I was dismayed to find out that I was originally correct.

Things have fundamentally changed and certainly not for the better. There used to be rifle clubs in public high schools and the kids would actually bring their weapons to school to take to the range afterward. Can you even imagine that now in a time where merely making your fingers into a “gun” and pointing it at someone is considered a red flag? According to my aforementioned experts, respect for adults in general is at an all-time low…which sucks for me because I’m moving into that age where I have found I expect it. I was brought up to say “yes, ma’am” and “no, ma’am” particularly to adults I didn’t know personally. The kids today don’t think anything of talking to you like you’re just another kid. That grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Anyhoo…I’m not sure how right the caller was, but we’ve fundamentally changed our society in these regards over the last 30 years or so. Our children have fundamentally changed for the worse in the same time period. If it walks like a duck…?

This is NOT to say that women shouldn’t work and have careers, etc. As I’ve always maintained, though, a mother’s attention is a zero-sum game. More attention to the kids means less attention to the job and the reverse is certainly true. There’s only so much parent pie (regardless of sex) to go around.